Two Sides of Levi's Character in Surviving Auschwitz . Levi comments on the events he describes and offers his own perspective, but never allows his point of view to interfere with his presentation of the facts or detract from the objective manner in which he discusses the events of the Holocaust. Given Levi's background as a chemist, the question arises of how to differentiate Levi the author from Levi the scientist, or whether such a distinction is necessary. This essay will examine Levi's identity and outlook, as well as his motivation behind writing and his method of communication, with the aim of establishing the extent to which he writes like a chemist. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay The first factor to consider is Levi's education and personal background, as they influenced his view of the Holocaust. He was educated at the Liceo Massimo d'Azeglio, a school noted for its anti-fascist sentiments, and studied chemistry at the Università degli Studi di Turino, although his classification as Jewish made it difficult for him to obtain a degree. 'a diploma. From this education he derived a positivist outlook through which he placed his trust in facts and reality, contrary to fascist racial dogma and idealism. Levi himself remarked that “chemistry and physics…”. . were the antidote to fascism” (Il sistema periodical, Ferro), and as he draws on his scientific principles when examining fascism, it is only natural that his careful and analytical realism is reflected in his writings. born in Turin and lived there before and after his experience at Auschwitz, as he felt a strong connection to this place as home. This is significant considering that Turin was an industrial and positivist city that remained particularly anti-fascist and was at odds with Mussolini's idealistic Italy. For example, Antonio Sonnessa (Factory Cells and the Red Aid Movement: Forms of Factory and Neighborhood Organization and Resistance to Fascism in Turin, 1922-1926) notes: "The recalcitrant opposition of the workers' movement and the working class of the city to fascism and capitalism between 1920 and 1922' and thus describes a city with an ideological base strongly skeptical of fascism and modern Italian politics. Although Levi should not be considered synonymous with the predominant Turin opinion, it is clear from his writings that he retained this skepticism and rejection of fascism. In short, before having any experience in a concentration camp, Levi had the perspective of a secular, positivist chemist through his education, career, and hometown, and one might expect that this perspective influences his writing regardless of the subject; he doesn't just write like a chemist, he writes like a chemist. Additionally, Levi's writing style and the reasoning behind it must also be taken into account; it is not enough to say that he writes like a chemist because he is one, given how carefully he treats the subject. While maintaining a neutral and deadpan register, Levi adopts two ways of writing. The first of these styles is that of factual description devoid of any deliberate emotional resonance with the reader; if one reacts to it, it is a personal reaction and nothing more. The other style focuses more on Levi's own thoughts and reactions and therefore offers a more philosophical insight into content that would otherwise be completely dry. The differencebetween these two styles is effectively underlined by two passages in which Levi describes Auschwitz: in the first ("Auschwitz: un nome privo di dignificato, allora e per noi; ma doveva pur corrispondere a un luogo di questa terra"), he captures the feeling of the unknown that gripped her and her train companions on the train to the camp, as well as a sense of positivistic relief upon learning that they were heading towards an actual destination - it offers the reader a powerful emotional insight into the spirit of a Jew traveling towards an uncertain end. However, the second reference to Auschwitz ("Noi siamo a Monowitz, vicino ad Auschwitz, in Alta Slesia: una regione abitata promiscuamente da tedeschi e polacchi..." and so on) is a flow of information without anything attached to it that could indicate the reader faced with a specific reaction; Levi details the facts and lets his reader deal with them as he sees fit. Although these two approaches to writing are very different, they both resemble what one might expect to see in a lab report: the factual approach parallels observations of what is happening in class of an experiment, and the philosophical approach parallels the explanation and interpretation of data that one might expect a chemist to offer. This style is effective for writing about the Holocaust, since Levi's facts are objective and true to the events while providing the reader with an accessible way to view them. On the other hand, Levi's personal ideas are sufficiently distinct from the raw facts to prevent the universal experience of the Holocaust from being obscured or confused with Levi's experience as an individual. They therefore provide a compelling and thought-provoking perspective that does not attempt to represent the suffering of others in itself. Viewing Levi as writing like a chemist takes on another level of meaning when contemplating the nature of Auschwitz and what the concentration camps actually represented. One could view the Lager as a laboratory examining the behavior of humanity when pushed beyond the limits of human living conditions. In I sommersi ei salvati, particularly in the chapter La zona grigia, Levi considers how individuals had to compromise their own values to survive under the regime of the SS, whose hierarchy permeated prisoner society, particularly in the context of how some Prisoners were granted special privileges by the guards. As Levi says here, “Limitiamoci al Lager, che però… può ben servee da “laboratorio”: the class ibrida dei prigionieri-funzionari does not constitute the backbone, and therefore the lineamento more worrying. » After detailing the use of the Lager as a laboratory in which one could observe the reaction of its prisoners to its hostile environment, particularly in the case of those who became part of the system as "prisoner officials". However, he also says that this specific class of prisoners was only the "backbone" and that the prisoners' society was "an inredibilmente complicated internal structure" – as Levi writes in Se questo, "voremmo far considerare come il Lager sia stato. » ".una gigantesca esperienza biologica e sociale", and he also expresses his shock at the cold and indifferent approach of the guards, showing the sterile and mechanical way in which the camp and its authorities functioned. Therefore, if one takes the Lager as a setting for a vast social experiment, as Levi did, then by observing it and attempting to understand it one assumes the role of a scientist. Enrico Mattioda (Al di qua dal bene e del male) considers that Levi's perspective as a chemist makes him particularly suited to this role.

Essay / Two Sides of Levi's Character in Surviving Auschwitz . Levi comments on the events he describes and offers his own perspective, but never allows his point of view to interfere with his presentation of the facts or detract from the objective manner in which he discusses the events of the Holocaust. Given Levi's background as a chemist, the question arises of how to differentiate Levi the author from Levi the scientist, or whether such a distinction is necessary. This essay will examine Levi's identity and outlook, as well as his motivation behind writing and his method of communication, with the aim of establishing the extent to which he writes like a chemist. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay The first factor to consider is Levi's education and personal background, as they influenced his view of the Holocaust. He was educated at the Liceo Massimo d'Azeglio, a school noted for its anti-fascist sentiments, and studied chemistry at the Università degli Studi di Turino, although his classification as Jewish made it difficult for him to obtain a degree. 'a diploma. From this education he derived a positivist outlook through which he placed his trust in facts and reality, contrary to fascist racial dogma and idealism. Levi himself remarked that “chemistry and physics…”. . were the antidote to fascism” (Il sistema periodical, Ferro), and as he draws on his scientific principles when examining fascism, it is only natural that his careful and analytical realism is reflected in his writings. born in Turin and lived there before and after his experience at Auschwitz, as he felt a strong connection to this place as home. This is significant considering that Turin was an industrial and positivist city that remained particularly anti-fascist and was at odds with Mussolini's idealistic Italy. For example, Antonio Sonnessa (Factory Cells and the Red Aid Movement: Forms of Factory and Neighborhood Organization and Resistance to Fascism in Turin, 1922-1926) notes: "The recalcitrant opposition of the workers' movement and the working class of the city to fascism and capitalism between 1920 and 1922' and thus describes a city with an ideological base strongly skeptical of fascism and modern Italian politics. Although Levi should not be considered synonymous with the predominant Turin opinion, it is clear from his writings that he retained this skepticism and rejection of fascism. In short, before having any experience in a concentration camp, Levi had the perspective of a secular, positivist chemist through his education, career, and hometown, and one might expect that this perspective influences his writing regardless of the subject; he doesn't just write like a chemist, he writes like a chemist. Additionally, Levi's writing style and the reasoning behind it must also be taken into account; it is not enough to say that he writes like a chemist because he is one, given how carefully he treats the subject. While maintaining a neutral and deadpan register, Levi adopts two ways of writing. The first of these styles is that of factual description devoid of any deliberate emotional resonance with the reader; if one reacts to it, it is a personal reaction and nothing more. The other style focuses more on Levi's own thoughts and reactions and therefore offers a more philosophical insight into content that would otherwise be completely dry. The differencebetween these two styles is effectively underlined by two passages in which Levi describes Auschwitz: in the first ("Auschwitz: un nome privo di dignificato, allora e per noi; ma doveva pur corrispondere a un luogo di questa terra"), he captures the feeling of the unknown that gripped her and her train companions on the train to the camp, as well as a sense of positivistic relief upon learning that they were heading towards an actual destination - it offers the reader a powerful emotional insight into the spirit of a Jew traveling towards an uncertain end. However, the second reference to Auschwitz ("Noi siamo a Monowitz, vicino ad Auschwitz, in Alta Slesia: una regione abitata promiscuamente da tedeschi e polacchi..." and so on) is a flow of information without anything attached to it that could indicate the reader faced with a specific reaction; Levi details the facts and lets his reader deal with them as he sees fit. Although these two approaches to writing are very different, they both resemble what one might expect to see in a lab report: the factual approach parallels observations of what is happening in class of an experiment, and the philosophical approach parallels the explanation and interpretation of data that one might expect a chemist to offer. This style is effective for writing about the Holocaust, since Levi's facts are objective and true to the events while providing the reader with an accessible way to view them. On the other hand, Levi's personal ideas are sufficiently distinct from the raw facts to prevent the universal experience of the Holocaust from being obscured or confused with Levi's experience as an individual. They therefore provide a compelling and thought-provoking perspective that does not attempt to represent the suffering of others in itself. Viewing Levi as writing like a chemist takes on another level of meaning when contemplating the nature of Auschwitz and what the concentration camps actually represented. One could view the Lager as a laboratory examining the behavior of humanity when pushed beyond the limits of human living conditions. In I sommersi ei salvati, particularly in the chapter La zona grigia, Levi considers how individuals had to compromise their own values to survive under the regime of the SS, whose hierarchy permeated prisoner society, particularly in the context of how some Prisoners were granted special privileges by the guards. As Levi says here, “Limitiamoci al Lager, che però… può ben servee da “laboratorio”: the class ibrida dei prigionieri-funzionari does not constitute the backbone, and therefore the lineamento more worrying. » After detailing the use of the Lager as a laboratory in which one could observe the reaction of its prisoners to its hostile environment, particularly in the case of those who became part of the system as "prisoner officials". However, he also says that this specific class of prisoners was only the "backbone" and that the prisoners' society was "an inredibilmente complicated internal structure" – as Levi writes in Se questo, "voremmo far considerare come il Lager sia stato. » ".una gigantesca esperienza biologica e sociale", and he also expresses his shock at the cold and indifferent approach of the guards, showing the sterile and mechanical way in which the camp and its authorities functioned. Therefore, if one takes the Lager as a setting for a vast social experiment, as Levi did, then by observing it and attempting to understand it one assumes the role of a scientist. Enrico Mattioda (Al di qua dal bene e del male) considers that Levi's perspective as a chemist makes him particularly suited to this role.

Navigation

« Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

Get In Touch